gurpsfandomcom-20200214-history
Action Points
see Increasing mobility while using The Last Gasp for lowered AP>MP costs Action Points are an aspect of The Last Gasp. It's amazing and near-perfect but could benefit from some tweaking. Problems with suggestions... Not allowing involuntary negative Not allowing voluntarily spending of action points below zero is fine, but since there can be involuntary loss of AP via shock or pain, they should be allowed to go below 0, or else enough AP loss involuntarily to cause a negative number should force the burning of FP to get more. Too little AP for the FP conversion ratio AP equal to FP is fine if using a 1:1 ratio for prior FP costs. Using a 1:10 ratio as suggested only allows 1 energy spells to be cast. The 1:5 ratio is more on bar with the burning of FP to fuel AP, but even that only allows 2 energy spells to be cast. Allowing voluntary negative spending Another option besides changing the ratio would be to allow voluntary expenditure into negative numbers with penalties. Consider how going below 0 FP causes equal loss in HP, which in turn causes shock. Going below 0 AP should not cause HP loss, but having the player suffer shock whenever spending/losing AP they don't actually have would be a good balancing mechanism. Shock, as normal, also would make the player lose additional AP unless they passed a HT roll to mitigate its loss, so it could lead to spending 1 AP at 0 leaving to -2 AP instead. This would motivate players to recover above 0 for efficiency purposes. It could bottom out at -1xHT just like FP does (at which point you can't voluntarily spend it, and further involuntary loss could cause shock but not further AP loss) or at -5x / -10x like HP, with HT checks made at each multiple (with penalty equal to number of HT multiples) to avoid being FORCED to lose 1 FP to involuntarily burn and restore the AP. At -10x would be a hard cap where you automatically fail such a roll. This would deal with the problem of how you might previously start off able to throw off a chain of 7 1-energy spells no prob (still have 4 FP left, no penalties) but even with the ideal 5:1 ratio that would cost 35 action points. Voluntary negative spending would allow this but reduce you to -25 (possibly -50 if not mitigating shock) where you'd need to make 3 HT rolls vs involuntary FP burn That or, give more base AP (consider 5xHT, similar to how Stun Points were 5xHP in 3e, or 2xHT) and much like with FP loss, have gradual penalties apply for every 20% or 50% you use like with the new FP system. Voluntariness could also be eliminated by completely emulating the HP system and require HT checks at negative 1xAP, negative 2xAP etc excerpt instead of "death", failure means your body spends 1 FP to restore 50% AP. Being at negative 5xAP forces it to happen. The benefit here is that by using a 1:5 ratio, a mage with 1 AP can still cast a 1 FP spell by reducing himself from +1 to -4 and since he's not at -5xAP he isn't guaranteed to lose an FP, although doing so would require passing HT checks he would be very likely to fail... Due to that, allow a Will roll instead of a HT roll when spending FP on a mental action would probably be a good option. Time needed to burn FP to restore AP would become irrelevant if it was a completely automatic thing, and there would be no purpose in voluntarily restoring AP because you could always spend as much as you liked, but would need to make interval HT/Will checks to see what the increments of your total caused. "Hard to Fatigue" (instead of "Hard to Kill") would also be an interesting potential advantage, giving bonuses to the checks to see whether or not being in negative AP is likely to force you to spend FP or not. Burning FP to restore AP is free Even in the previous system there is a realism problem with people being able to burn through FP to the point of unconsciousness in an unrealistically short amount of time. Extra Effort in Combat for example, by spenging 1 FP offense 1 FP defense, could drain 10 FP in 5 seconds, and that's without taking into account other FP expenditures which could reach there even more quickly. Drawing upon energy reserves is an act of will, so requiring a Concentrate maneuver and a successful Will roll per point you want to burn would help slow it down. Optionally, could be allowed as a Ready maneuver instead, perhaps some kind of Fast-Draw / Fast-Ready skill to allow it as a free action on a successful role, but still limited to once per turn at the start a the skill normally works. Rules on swapping an attack+parry from Compendium could fit this into a wider variety of maneuvers. See also Move and Ready though. There is no Move and Concentrate. Freebies Movement can be too cheap (IE the free step and free facing change, staying still should always be more economic) and unfair (Move 2 gets to move 50% of Move for free, Move 5 gets to move 20% of Move for free, Move 10 gets to move 10% of move for free, etc) due to free movements. Infinite non-sprinting movement Not requiring additional AP to maintain current speed is a problem. There should be a chance of losing some, benefits to stopping short of traveling your full move, microexhaustion which leads up to the guaranteed loss of 1 FP minimum hourly per Hiking at 1 step/yard per second (3ft/s) ie 20% of the move. The "Recovery Criteria" even allows this to qualify as RESTING. Moving 3ft/s isn't resting. Lowering this down to 10% of Move (ie the actual 1/10 step not the artifically big 1/5 step due to 1 yard minimums) would be more realistic and explain why brisk hikes have a possibility of somehow draining FP, even if merely 1 per hour. Removing the free step as in the previous section would accomplish this if applied to the move mechanics as well. Instead of it being free to maintain your previous momentum, it is free to maintain it MINUS one step. So you would need to spend 1 AP per second to maintain previous momentum you had already started in a given direction. This is realistic because even though momentum helps making walking more efficient (stored energy, no inertia) there's still friction and expenditure of energy to account for. Ratios It makes more sense to charge a fixed 1 AP per 10% of Move as in the move maneuver or when making retreats. For people whom 1 hex is more than 10% of their move, they should have to take 2+steps / 2+ AP. Since people get a free retreat (or slip or sideslip) in most maneuvers (or an extra step in committed attack, or 1/2 move from AOA/AOD), that still allows that much movement. Just let someone who doesn't use their retreat use it at the end of their turn directly before starting their next maneuver. Anti-Committed Charging the same price for Committed Attack as All-Out Attack seems unfair because the point of CA is to retain some capacity to defend, which would skyrocket the price. Charging 3AP for AOA might balance that out. This should include the cost of a 'double' attack if application, if that's taken instead of Strong/Long/Determined. IE the "per maneuver" rather than "per attack" cost. Anti-AOD-Double Making 2 defenses costing 2 AP will motivate people in the direction of 'determined' defenses. These are supposed to be on-par benefits. To make Double more attractive, have the 2 defenses cost a single AP instead of 2. Punches and Kicks are equal Kicks just plain take more time and energy to do than a punch, and there should be mechanics to reflect that. If you're using your legs to kick AND step then that's doing 2 things at once, so applying an additional -2 to step rolls (see below) or kicks made with the same leg and the same turn would not be unjustified. A similar penalty could apply to punches if moving via crawling or climbing. A penalty to the rolls does influence the chances of succeeding by 10 points and having it cost 0 AP. Harder kicks with bigger penalties are thus more prone to being tiresome. https://gamingballistic.com/2013/07/15/falling-down-head-kicking-for-fun-and/ giving penalties to kick rolls (higher chance of missing, falling down) when kicking higher targets serves this well. It takes more energy to kick higher, so having a lower chance of a 0 AP kick is RIGHT The slowness of kicks can somewhat be reflected in penalties too, because higher skill means more ease in taking the -6 for a rapid strike. But in that case AP cost should be "per maneuver" not "per action" because if you charge 2 AP for 2 punches, it doesn't make punches more economic than a 1 AP kick. Another approach is to treat legs as Unready weapons. "Readying" the leg, lifting it off the ground (because normally you are using it for standing or stepping) is done as normal. To speed it up, can use Fast-Ready in lieu of spending a maneuver to do so. Instead of being forced to transform into Ready maneuvers though, use the options of Readies taking the place of 1 attack + 1 parry with that limb, as suggested in GURPS Compendium II in 3e. Much like Chambara Fighting does with trading attacks for steps, or MA does with trading attacks for feints. Like an off-balance weapon like an axe, you'd re-ready your leg after each strike, though options like Defensive Attack could mitigate it. To compensate for the slowness, calculate thrust as if kicks had double your ST. Then it can be un-readied by someone using a disarm to slap your leg aside. But you will never drop it because it's not attached to you, similar to how you can't actually "drop" a shield strapped to your arm the same way you can drop a buckler, instead it just means you need to re-ready it. Leg Parry should function like a Block on critically failed active defenses too: just become unreadied. Normally crit-failing parries causes you to hurt yourself , including knocking yourself out. While you can certainly knee yourself in the face, it probably doesn't happen as often as with arm blocks. Also the increased ST of legs should allow them to parry heavier attacks. Treating the damage of leg strikes as Power Parry subtracting from the damage of attacks they intercept directly would deal with that. Redirecting attacks shouldn't subtract from damage, but gives you the chance of redirecting it, possibly away from your body parts with a good enough roll and orientation. Nondirectional AP cost for movement should be tied to MP cost for movement. Moving 1 hex backward or sideways should be as expensive as moving 2 hexes forward, moving 1 hex while crawling should be more tiring than moving 1 hex while walking. Instead of 1 AP per 10% of Move traveled, it should be that spending 1 AP gives you 10% of your Movement Points, and how far that gets you would depend on standard rules. Speaking of Movement Points That system needs tweaking too. If you read Tactical Combat on B384, specifically B387 Movement Point Costs. Keep 1 MP for forward movement *charge 2 MP for front-side instead of side/back *charge 3 MP for side/back Backward/side movement might remain equally efficient in terms of movement/time and energy expenditure, but backward stepping should be harder (thus the heavier penalty below) because of the lack of peripheral vision. For those who have Restricted Vision where side is like rear, then apply same penalties. That should probably apply to One Eye guys on a single side, but not natural Cyclopes. *Kneeling should be more expensive than crawling! You have your knees on the ground either way, but with Crawling you get your arms to help so it should be faster! But possible more tiring. *Lying down charge 5 MP, not "all". *ignore "always move at least 1", if you can't move at least 1/2 hex at your given posture/direction then allow "stocking" of the points until reaching that minimum, at which point it happens *ignore "cost does not matter". Always work with MP, steps are just 1/10 MP, humans with 5 move must take 2 steps to accomplish 20%. None of this silly "I stepped and then I slipped" to accomplish 40% move! **Hexes have halves, take advantage of them! You are centred in one of 3 triangles which compose any half of a hex. Movements within your hex that don't involve leaving it can cost less MP! Too expensive to MOVE looking at things like shuttle run or beep test, even when not consistently traveling in the same direction (decelerating and doing a 180 degree turn, needing to move up to full speed all over again) people are able to maintain this for a decent period of time without necessarily dipping into FP loss. Plus, even though SOMETHING should be charged for even the 10% of move (instead of step) and first 60 degree facing change, guaranteeing a loss of 1 AP/second for such things could be too much. RPG Snob pointed this out in 2013: :The AP system isn't terribly expensive for attacks and defenses (usually 1 AP each) but movement on any scale above a single step (that is, one yard of movement per one second turn) gets pretty expensive 15 March 2013 Doug Cole replied to this: :I had a system in development that would spend AP for acceleration, but then HT rolls for 1 AP loss periodically. Not fully worked out yet. DX checks to mitigate It's really an unfair benefit to "shufflers" who pay nothing at all to make small adjustments, even though 1 yard / 60 degree turn is measurably and significant. The solution for this is to use page 10's Critical Success rules, including page 11's "success by 10 or more" option. Then, you simply make rolls for each step or direction change you make, apply the base cost of 1 AP, but ignore that if you succeed by a wide enough margin. This realistically makes walking more efficient for people who are more agile/coordinated, and ends up with more energy expenditure for people who have DX penalties for various reasons like injury, shock, being grappled, etc. "+10 for ideal non-combat conditions" (ie B345 automatic/ubertrivial) means to ignore the AP cost (success by 10), you'd simply need to succeed at an unmodified DX roll. This would create a 50/50 chance of losing an AP per step. This makes charging for the first "free" step less of a big deal. *this assumes forward, stepping to the front-side hexes should be -1, side hexes -2, backward -3 *this assumes nobody is around, apply a -1 if there are people in adjacent hexes, -2 if there are people within the hex you're exiting or entering Skill checks to mitigate Where appropriate, skills could be subbed for DX. When traveling front or front-side, the Running Skill makes sense for the 100% (move, M+A) and 50% (AOA, AOD:DD) maneuvers, while the Hiking skill (or combat skills) make sense for 20% (step) maneuvers. For traveling back or back-side the better of Acrobatics or any combat skill would be more appropriate even when making a Move maneuver, since moving backward happens more in combat training than in recreational terrain-traversal. For non-bipedal movements, using swimming for aerobatics for example, and something like Wrestling could probably sub for DX when Crawling]] or Rolling in a Lying position. Arts which don't train ground movements (boxing, sumo, karate) should not apply unless standing. Or at least they should take posture penalties where the others don't, unless there are appropriate techniques for buying off those penalties. Economic turns True-forward movement should be more economic than stepping into a front-side hex and turning to face it, so you should charge MP and AP for the 60 degree turn. But: *Spinning (Acrobatic Movement) sets a precedent for getting "free" in place of one turn by making a skill check and risking a fall **in terms of AP this should not be "free" but since faster turns would utilize momentum, it should mitigate the cost, turning left>left>left takes less energy than pivoting left>right>left. **the option should be, rather than paying AP multiple times and each taking 1/10 a second, in 1/10 a second you do a QUICK turn, pay 1 AP, and apply a cumulative -2 penalty similar to acrobatic turn. You need a baseline roll for turning, this just makes it harder. If cumulative -2 is too little, just make it a bigger progressive penalty. This would need balance testing Combination step+turns This cumulative penalty can be applied to a baseline step instead of a baseline turn. Probably don't allow this to allow double-steps/triple-steps in very little time or AP cost. Or if you do, make the progressive penalty very large, like -5 or -10 per additional, to dissuade abuse Compare for example to B346 Haste option for Time Spent, -1 per 10% less time, so doing something in half the time (-50%) is a -5 penalty. Doing something in 1/3 the time rounds up to -70% for a -7 penalty. Doing something in 1/4 the time rounds up to -80% for a -8 penalty but that's basically 1/5 the time! An obvious problem cropping up here though: the penalty is decreasing as the fraction shrinks... There should be a cap of 1-2 extra (total 2 or 3) since these were designed to allow 180 degree turns, not 270 degree turns Flurries This is actually very similar to page 7's Mighty Warriors and Action Points but with decisecond 10MP "steppish" increments rather than combos. Combos are also, conveniently, normally limited to 3. In that case, borrowing the cumulative -6 to skill from Rapid Strike would be following precedent, and be healthy enough to dissuade people. Consider double-steps or double-pivots as -6 flurry and a triple-step or triple-pivot as a -12 flurry. Spinning Speed Penalties This resembles Spinning (Acrobatic Movement) (the precedent of allowing 2 or 3 facing changes instead of 1) from MA105 so apply B550's speed-based penalties based on your present velocity. One option, if a -6/-12/-18 seems too difficult, is taking advantage of the Speedy/Range concept of the table: add the number of facing changes you want to make to the velocity you are traveling at to get a higher number and check what the penalty for that sum is instead. Or just apply -5s or -4s or -3s per change. Alternates to DX for facing change rolls Acrobatics can always be rolled against, allowing Running only makes sense if you're running forward or forward-side. Standard recreational running is not expertise in side-strafing or backward running! You should need some other kind of skill to do that, or a huge penalty. This is more inherent to Acrobatics or Combat skills. *instead of DX you could say to roll against higher of Acrobatics or Combat for spinning, if pivoting is too easy. Defaulting to acrobatics instead of DX makes it much harder for the lay-person and especially those with Incompetence (quirk) Telegraphing If it's still too big a deal and you're not passing enough to conserve AP, consider adding another +4 (consider it a a telegraphic attack of your foot vs the ground). A DX 10 person would pay 0 AP to step by rolling 14 or less, which happens around 90% of the time. Just keep in mind, since it's telegraphic, that if you accidentally almost trample a mouse, it is +2 to dodge you, and this bonus will give you a higher chance of critical success... but it WILL help you succeed by 10 or more. So if you charge 1 AP per 10% of move, but make 10 DX rolls to try and mitigate that AP for each portion, odds are the average human will end up paying only 1 AP to accelerate to full speed. This makes shuttle-run beep-tests more achievable. You're probably going to want a machine die-roller for this level of stuff though, so you can get by speedily. Rules of this depth are not condusive to IRL play with physical dice where the players and not computers must total up the 3d6. That would go pretty slowly for many people, and combat that slow could bore many people. That sort of objection could apply to the utilization of Action Points or Movement Points in the first place though. Under the rules in Pyramid a human who runs 5 hex (15ft) goes 10AP>2AP and after using their free 60 degree turn, pays the remaining 2 AP to turn the full 180 degrees, so they can't make another move maneuver the following second to run back to where they started! The 4 possibilities *Crit success (or success by 10) is paying 0 AP *Normal success is simply someone stepping and paying 1 AP *Failure could allow still allow the step for 1 AP, but apply the margin of failure as a penalty to the next roll **this is a a stumble you could recover come by taking a turn to catch yourself, if moving at a slow pace, harder if going at a full speed since you must decelerate and keep rolling while doing so *Critical failure (ie failure by 10) would be a fall could cause a fall **not very likely at +14 to skill. A high MoF from a preceding roll could eventually get here though, since failures could accumulate as a progressive stumble. **like a normal fall, a roll against Breakfall could let you avoid hitting the ground and just crouch, but this will cost you 1 AP to do. **even if you fail to Breakfall (or if it succeeds) you could Roll with Blow (RWB should probably also cost 1 AP to do) to minimize damage ***winning by 10 or more in either would reduce 1 AP cost to 0 AP, per usual Shuttling economy Applying the base 1AP (0 on 14 or less) = 10% Move in MP allows someone with Move 5 (10% of move is 0.5) spending 10% of 13 AP (the extra 3 is for the 180 degree turn per pass) spending ~1.3AP per SHUTTLERUN pass to expend 3.9 AP per three passes, 7.8 for 6, 9.1 for 7... and they run out of AP just before completing the 10th. Much better performance. Nuisance-free walking As for casual non-combat walking, GMs wishing to avoid that can simply declare that everyone has No Nuisance Rolls for walking (NNR only applies outside combat with modified skill of 16+). A +14 bonus to DX for walking means even someone with DX 2 could casually walk in non-combat situations without falling. If they're carrying on a conversation or using Perception, perhaps apply a -2 for doing 2 things at once, at which case you'd need DX 4 to reliably walk and survey or converse (perhaps -4 if BOTH talking to friends and watching the place around you) This does create benefits to effectively reducing DX to high negative numbers via pain/shock/grappling since these would matter much more in creating stumbles or more tiring steps. The only problem with "no nuisance rolls" is that you don't get a randomized mechanic for spreading out AP expenditure. The solution there is probably a "take 10" approach. But in this case not 10 on a 3d6, but rather "take 10%" and instead of rolling, assume you are spending 1 AP per second you accelerate by full move, or 1 AP per 10 seconds you maintain a speed. Determined Move maneuvers Since this leads to "I run out of AP after walking for 100 seconds" more modifications may be needed. The solution to that is Committed Move (like Committed Ready) and All-Out Move. Using "determined" take a +2 or a +4 to the DX rolls for your movement rather than an attack. The latter would be useful to offset the previous section's suggestion for 2*-2 for THREE things at once (walk/talk/survey) This could be an option for Move and Attack too, but if you take +4 on your steps/turns (should probably choose 1 or the other, not both) then you don't get it on your attack. MaA already has comrpromised defenses so stacking it with further defense compromization could be viewed as cheating (even though you can do worse with techniques) This would mean 0 AP steps when rolling 16 or less, or 18 or less. You're looking at 98.1% and 100% now. Except that 18 or higher functions like 17 because 18 is always a failure, so it's really 99.5%. So you're looking at ~1/50 steps and ~1/200 steps. This would allow you to take 50*10=500 steps using Committed Move before running out of AP, or 200*10=2000 steps using All-Out Move before running out of AP. Consider how easy it would be to simply spend 1 second slowing down to 10% Move MP to take an Evaluate and recover that! Someone engaged in combat is probably not going to want to penalize their defenses to focus on movement efficiency like this. Since the base +10 is for "ideal non-combat conditions" that base ought to be lower too. Consider these guidelines instead. Evaluating the Earth Of course, if you had spent an Evaluate maneuver catching your breath, allowing that bonus to apply to your steps (if evaluating the GROUND instead of an opponent) seems perfectly acceptable. Someone who builds up to Evaluate+3 would, even if the bonus was reduced to 5+4, get a total of +12 which is still pretty good odds of not spending very much AP. Time taken bonus approach The Move maneuver allows someone 100% of their Movement Points in 1 second according to Tactical Combat. Expending 1 AP to gain access to 10% of Movement points can be perceived as occurring during the unit of time of a decisecond. You could define DS as a temporal unit which players gain various amounts of based on which maneuver they choose. Move maneuver would give 10 DS, standard "step" maneuvers only get 2 (one step and 1 retreat which is like a Wait so can be spent before end of turn if not utilized to retreat) while AOA or AOD:DD would get 5 (1/2 move). Basically DS would fluctuate like MP/AP do. Someone who chooses a Move maneuver is not obligated to spend all their MP. Rather than perceiving someone who say, spends 2 AP to move 20% of their MP (ie moving 1 hex) as moving for 0.2 seconds and then standing still for 0.8 seconds, you could instead perceive as it being spread out because they are taking extra time to move a shorter distance. Using the rules for taking extra time on accomplishing skills from B346, if you spend 0.8s instead of 0.1s to use 10% of your AP, you should get a +3 bonus to those rolls. This would help in offsetting penalties for things like walking directions other than forward, incorporating turns, slippery terrain, etc. For someone with horrible DX, big penalties etc. who needs everything possible, allow this to be taken over several seconds. For example, if you have Move 1, taking 8 seconds of Move maneuvers would normally give you 8 MP. If you move 1 MP worth during that time ("stock" your DS until reaching the required multiple) then you could get the +3 bonus. Take 30 seconds to move 3 feet and a +5 bonus is wholly appropriate. Someone moving 1 foot per 10 seconds would be able to step very carefully and be efficient and avoid falling. This would be important if you failed your previous check, because the Margin of Failure becomes a penalty on the next roll! Going all-out is not the best strategy for counteracting a stumble. On the other hand: this is relative to moment. Maintaining your previous speed -10% Move (the lost free step) is free, after all. Though there should probably be "handling" penalties. Also a gradual deceleration (just let the -10%s bleed you down from full to 0 in 10 seconds) is safer, sharper deceleration should cost some AP/MP. Though maybe not that weird AP/20%+AP/33% pairing per from page 9's Variant Move: Acceleration, to match the 1AP/10% from page 10 which falls in line with the initial ruling, 1AP/15% for decel works out a little cleaner. Heck, even 1AP/20% would be find, slowing down shouldn't be that hard. Hard to control perhaps, but not hard to do. Of course, since the proposal is 10% deceleration is free (and must be counterracted by paying for 10% MP like a step, as proposed for all maneuvers) applying 1AP/10% just like acceleration would probably work out fine. Or apply 15/20 to get 25/30 on the first tier, 40/50 on the 2nd, 55/70 on 3rd, 70/90 on 4th... 85/110 on 5th, 100/130 on 6th (the latter 2 stats for the 20% increments would only apply when slowing down from Sprinting or Enhanced Move) Hiking to PR to Sprinting continuum The baseline rules in campaigns: *Hiking (10% move) expends 1 FP+Encumbrance per hour *Paced Running (60% move) expends FP upon failing a HT roll, rolling every 60s *Sprinting (120% move, barring Enhanced Move) expends 1 FP upon failing a HT roll, rolling every 15s While these are great for consistent-based travel, they lack the complexity to deal with people whose speed varies over time. They should serve as guidelines when designing more complex systems though. The influence on HT on FP loss is already represented by HT giving more AP and HT allowing faster restoration of AP during Recovery Maneuvers. The chosen speeds in relation to move should govern the rates of AP loss in a similar way to how in baseline rules they guide the frequency of HT rolls. But instead of fixed points (10/60/120) rules must account for all choices of speed, or at least within 10% increments of Movement Points (NOT the Basic Move, stepping forward is having as tiring as stepping backward!) for more versatility. The previous section rules for taking more time account for this. Someone with 10 deciseconds (DM) worth of movement from a Move maneuver who spends all of them on what they could accomplish in 1 decisecond is using 10x the required time. The rules on B346 "Time Spent" for Extra Time don't have a 10x so have them spend 0.8 seconds on 10% of their MP and get a +3 bonus to the DX rolls. Or if they only spend 0.2 or 0.4 give them +1 or +2. In cases where you only need to spend 5% of your MP (for example, you have Move 20 and want to move 1 hex) then spending 0.05 x 15 = 0.75 would give you a +4 bonus. For +5 you'd need 30x so that would be something like a Move 40 guy (4 MP/DS) who would normally need 0.25 DS (0.025s) to move 1 MP, instead spends 7.5 DS (0.75s) to do it (30x as long, 30x0.25=7.5=). Of course, since 1 AP requires 1DS(0.1s) time you'd have to round that up to 0.8s to do, and would have a leftover 5MP (80-75) to do things with. See also *Enlarge *HT roll to resist fatigue loss *Increasing mobility while using The Last Gasp Category:Points